Yesterday, a federal district judge in Boston declared that the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriage - as articulated in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA - is unconstitutional.

The judge, Joseph Tauro, based his decision on the notion that states, not the federal government, have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. If his decision holds up through appeals - and that's a big if - it would mean that the federal government would likely have to recognize those same-sex marriages already recognized by states, and thus provide benefits like Medicaid to same-sex partners. . . .

Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University as well as the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which works against same-sex marriage efforts, said in an interview with Hotsheet that he believes the Massachusetts decision was wrong. He cites examples in which the federal government recognizes marriage for various purposes, such as the filing of tax returns.

"I believe that the federal government does have the power to define marriage for purposes of federal law," he said - even if it doesn't have the power to define it for the purposes of state law.